^ "Everything that can be invented has been invented." ~ Charles H. Duell, Commissioner's Office for US Patents, 1899. Except not. In addition, looking at something familiar from a new angle is doing something new, as I thought you'd be aware as an artist; non-realism is more realistic than realism because it's better at capturing subjectivity. See Lucian Freud versus a Deviant.
Innovation doesn't make money. Van Gogh was a starving artist. So was James Joyce. Most of the really innovative people have been. People like their comfort zones and what they know. Anything new is instinctively rejected unless people are forced to observe its merits. So it's not financially viable to try new things. And the present world is a big machine running on profit; humanity and aesthetics died sometime between rationalism and WW1. Blame the idiots who buy the games or blame human nature for being so conservative or blame capitalism, don't blame game companies.
Last edited by Delphinus; 04-05-2012 at 08:51 AM.
Originally Posted by Fenn
You forgot your F in Modesty.
Agreed. Though you do have those games and game companies out there that just make it blatantly obvious 'we want your money, yes this is the same game as numerous others, no we didn't even try to do anything different, yes, you'll buy it, and here's this on-disc DLC for the same price as the game itself'.
Which oddly enough, people -do- end up buying them and playing them, lol.
Patents and art don't really work the same way as gameplay mechanics. You could very well patent something that's essentially useless or draw something that nobody appreciates. Games are confined to both of those criteria: people need to like it, and people need to find it useful.
X-Factor in MvC3 was a mechanic created to eliminate the perpetual comeback, but it only broke the game in many instances. Was a cool idea, was relatively new and different in its execution. But it broke the game.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks